starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
StarCraft Wiki talk:Using names and nouns
See Wowwiki's excellent policy at http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Policy/Naming Kimera 757 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Weapon article names It seems we have a lot of naming schemes. To standardize things, I was thinking that for weapons with tech designations (like C-10, P-45) the articles would be named "C-10 rifle" and "P-45 pistol", leaving out any nicknames, manufacturer, or specific type of weapon (like "gauss pistol" and "sniper rifle".) That would allow the opening sentences of the articles to be more well rounded like: :The C-14 ''Impaler'' is a terran gauss rifle issued to... :The C-10 is a terran canister rifle firing 25 mm rounds... I'm not sure how the BOSUN FN92 would fit in since I'm not sure what BOSUN is. If it's the manufacturer, then the article would be "FN92 rifle", with the beginning sentence being: :The BOSUN FN92 is a terran sniper rifle... A lot of the P-series pages would also be renamed to "P220 pistol" and so on.Meco 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I think that makes sense. Maybe the C-14 article could start with The C-14 Impaler gauss rifle is the primary weapon assigned to ... just because of word association. But the article name could just be C-14 rifle, as you've proposed. I think BOSUN FN92 has to stay as BOSUN FN92 since we don't have any information to trim the name down. Kimera 757 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Confusion? It occurs to me that the unit name section is a bit confusing. Isn't the siege tank a specific unit? (Maybe we need a master list for corner cases.) Kimera 757 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC) :The way the policy is now it seems the in-universe and out-of-universe sections follow different conventions. In the in-universe Overviews, we're usually talking about the general type so its lower case. In the Game Unit sections, it's the other way around. :Perhaps it'd be simpler to have all references be lower case. The Game Unit sections are obviously about the game units, so there's no ambiguity there. If we need to say that "Jane was a Medic" (of the Brood War sort), then we can just link it and do "Jane was a medic". Meco 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) More examples Capitalized: *Jackal (a class of vehicle, sort of like a Hummvee... isn't that usually capitalized?) *Nomad (probably a class of vessel) *Science vessel (Explorer class) *Thor (possibly, we'll probably know more tomorrow when Frontline comes out) *Vulture (a class of hover vehicle) *Wraith (a class of starfighter) Not capitalized: *Siege tank (you would capitalize Arclite or Crucio) *Medivac dropship That's what I figure anyway. Thoughts? I guess I should do protoss soon, too. Kimera 757 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) :I think "science vessel" by itself would be a common noun, since it's Explorer-class science vessel (although the article isn't named that), like Behemoth-class battlecruiser. Nomad is fine, since its TF-620 Nomad, like AH/G-24 Banshee, or the real world F-22 Raptor. More or less everything is a common noun, except for faction/nationality/people names, class names (like Behemoth), nicknames (like Banshee, and I think Jackal fits here too). :For the protoss I think "Colossus", "Reaver", "Corsair" would be proper nouns, since they're nicknames. Everything else I think are common nouns. Dark templar (the individuals) would be a common noun, even though Dark Templar (the faction) is a proper noun. Same thing goes for the high templar (the individuals), even though Templar (the caste) is the other way. :The "citadel of Adun" is a bit weird but aside from the name of Adun should be considered a common noun as well since there are many citadels of Adun. This contrasts with the Citadel of the Executor, which there is (or was) only one of. :The zerg are easy if we regard their unit names as specie names. Meco 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I, Mengsk Notes Just a note from I, Mengsk; vultures and goliaths are referred to without capitalizing their names. Kimera 757 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC) xel'naga Uh, Xel'Naga is quite obviously an uncommon noun. You can't infer how Blizzard treats the name based on one article. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 13:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC) There's also the Dark Templar Saga, I believe. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Abilities So, should abilities be capitalised in articles or not? I'm inclined to say no, keeping with the unit and structure thing, but it's not listed, so I thought I should ask.-- [[User:El_Nazgir|'El_Nazgir']] 19:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC) I've tended to use ability names as proper nouns to distinguish them as primarily gameplay elements, but I'm not sure how well that logic applies now. Some ability names are "lore-y" ad s well, and we haven't done anything similar when we use units in a gameplay context. using ability names along the current conventions (which means most might become common nouns) might be better for the sake of simplicity. - Meco (talk, ) 00:41, September 24, 2010 (UTC)